http://www.moleday.org/htdocs/gifs/2001a.jpg
In some way I think that this image could try to symbloize that we have so much more knowledge nowadays, than we had when there were still active vulcanos and people had to write on stones. I think the picture is trying to make us feel lucky that we have the oppertunitys to change so much because of that we have som much knowledge.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Questions for Active Reading p.385
1. Gould defines facts as the "world's data" and referes to observing an apple fall from the tree as Isaac Newton is alleged to have done. Identify some of the facts Gould presents as evidance to support the theory of evolution.
"Imperfection of nature reveals evolution." "Transitions are often found in the fossil record."
2. Gould defines theories as "structures of ideas thar explain and interpret facts," such as Newton's theory of gravitation, which was introduced to explain facts like falling apples. In addition to facts, Gould states, the theory of evolution is supported by reasonable inferences. Identify some inferences that he cites as evidence.
3. Gould begins this essay with allusions to the Scope trial of 1925, Darrow, and Bryan. He seems to assume that his readers will know what he is talking about. If you know about this event, how does this reference set the scene for his 1981 eassay? If you don't know about it, was your understanding reduced?
I had no idea what the scopes trial of 1925 was, so I'm sure that my understanding of the text was reduced.
"Imperfection of nature reveals evolution." "Transitions are often found in the fossil record."
2. Gould defines theories as "structures of ideas thar explain and interpret facts," such as Newton's theory of gravitation, which was introduced to explain facts like falling apples. In addition to facts, Gould states, the theory of evolution is supported by reasonable inferences. Identify some inferences that he cites as evidence.
3. Gould begins this essay with allusions to the Scope trial of 1925, Darrow, and Bryan. He seems to assume that his readers will know what he is talking about. If you know about this event, how does this reference set the scene for his 1981 eassay? If you don't know about it, was your understanding reduced?
I had no idea what the scopes trial of 1925 was, so I'm sure that my understanding of the text was reduced.
Questions for Active Reading p.371
1. Using an active reading technique from Chapter 2, read the first and the last paragraphs of this article. Now that you have read the entire article, would you say that technique gave you a good preview?
Yes, I would say that I got a good prewiev by reading the first and the last paragraph, before reading the entire text.
2. Why is it important to know that Lightman is a scientist? would an artist or a social worker write about this subject in this way?
Is important that Lightman is a scientist because then we know that he has been studying things like this and that he has a lot of knowledge of the subject. We can believe that he's trying to prove something and that he's trying to tell the truth.
I think an artist would would write a lot more easier to understand, because Lightman is writing a lot of facts that can be hard to understand and take in.
3. Where is Lightman using a lighthearted tone? Identify some phrases that show this. Where is he serious? Identify some phrases that show this. What is the effect of these tones?
Lightman is using a lighthearted tone when he's writing about his own experiences, what he believes in, and what he wants.
Example is this paragraph: "Someday soon, I'm going to catch the Earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse, or go to sea in clear air, and find out for sure if the Earth is round or flat. Actually, the Earth is reported to flatten at the poles, because it rotates. But that's another story."
He is more serious when he's writing down all the facts that he know about.
Example is this paragraph: "For at least 600 years educated people have believed that Earth is round. At nearly any medieval University, the quadrivium was standard fare, consisting of artihmegtic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The astronomy portion was based on the Tractatus de Sphaera, a popular textbook first published at Ferarra, Italy, in 1472 and written by a 13th century, Oxford-educated astronomer and mathematican, Johannes de Sacrobosco."
By being serious when he tells us all the facts, we believe that what he tells us is true and that he's a good scientist whit a lot of knowledge, and that he takes his job seriously. By writing lighthearted sometimes, he makes us feel like he is one of us and that he is a human with human thoughts, just like anybody else.
Yes, I would say that I got a good prewiev by reading the first and the last paragraph, before reading the entire text.
2. Why is it important to know that Lightman is a scientist? would an artist or a social worker write about this subject in this way?
Is important that Lightman is a scientist because then we know that he has been studying things like this and that he has a lot of knowledge of the subject. We can believe that he's trying to prove something and that he's trying to tell the truth.
I think an artist would would write a lot more easier to understand, because Lightman is writing a lot of facts that can be hard to understand and take in.
3. Where is Lightman using a lighthearted tone? Identify some phrases that show this. Where is he serious? Identify some phrases that show this. What is the effect of these tones?
Lightman is using a lighthearted tone when he's writing about his own experiences, what he believes in, and what he wants.
Example is this paragraph: "Someday soon, I'm going to catch the Earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse, or go to sea in clear air, and find out for sure if the Earth is round or flat. Actually, the Earth is reported to flatten at the poles, because it rotates. But that's another story."
He is more serious when he's writing down all the facts that he know about.
Example is this paragraph: "For at least 600 years educated people have believed that Earth is round. At nearly any medieval University, the quadrivium was standard fare, consisting of artihmegtic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The astronomy portion was based on the Tractatus de Sphaera, a popular textbook first published at Ferarra, Italy, in 1472 and written by a 13th century, Oxford-educated astronomer and mathematican, Johannes de Sacrobosco."
By being serious when he tells us all the facts, we believe that what he tells us is true and that he's a good scientist whit a lot of knowledge, and that he takes his job seriously. By writing lighthearted sometimes, he makes us feel like he is one of us and that he is a human with human thoughts, just like anybody else.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In the news: Youth vote
I think that that it's a good idea to let kids have some sort of election just to see what tehy think. I think that kida aren't so affected by everything as adults are, so i think that their opinion are more real, and more true.
I know that a 8 year old might not be so informed about eveything that he or she can have a very good view of what is going on, but i think that I 8 year old would be very honest in what he or she thinks and that he or she would probably try do see to the best of more people, while an adult would be more egoistic since a lot of grown ups wants to see to the best of themselves instead of the best of other people.
I know that a 8 year old might not be so informed about eveything that he or she can have a very good view of what is going on, but i think that I 8 year old would be very honest in what he or she thinks and that he or she would probably try do see to the best of more people, while an adult would be more egoistic since a lot of grown ups wants to see to the best of themselves instead of the best of other people.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Journal Entry #7
· In this essay, Orwell suggests that the English language is on the decline because the people who use English are misusing the language. What sort of things does he mention as proof that the English language is in trouble?
I don't really know, but maybe because we are taking in words from other languages, and by doing that we starts to forget our own english words.
He also writes that it can have political and economic reasons.
· Orwell wrote this essay almost 60 years ago. Do you think the English language is in a better or worse condition than when Orwell wrote his essay? Can you think of modern examples of how people misuse language?
I think that the english language is in a better shape than he writes, because I think it's natural that new and foreign words are coming in to a language, and that a language is developing, just like everything else.
· What do you think of Orwell’s list of rules to improve your writing?
I think that maybe the rules will improve the writing because we will have to think a lot more about what to write and not just throw out the first word that pops up in your head, but at the same time, I think that maybe the rules will make a lot of the texts that we are writing, looking more like each other and not as personal.
· Orwell wrote the following in the provided excerpt:
Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person.
What do you think he means when he suggests that one should focus on “pictures and sensations” before one sits down to put words on the page? Have you ever done this? Does it help you write better?
I think that he might meen that we should try to think first what we realloy want to describe and what we think is the important part of the picture and then try to write down the importtant part of the picture and what we really want other people to see. "A picture says more than thousands of words."
I think that every time we a doing a picture and try to describe it we are doing it, but I have never done it and thought about that I'm doing it, but I think it can be a good idea.
I don't really know, but maybe because we are taking in words from other languages, and by doing that we starts to forget our own english words.
He also writes that it can have political and economic reasons.
· Orwell wrote this essay almost 60 years ago. Do you think the English language is in a better or worse condition than when Orwell wrote his essay? Can you think of modern examples of how people misuse language?
I think that the english language is in a better shape than he writes, because I think it's natural that new and foreign words are coming in to a language, and that a language is developing, just like everything else.
· What do you think of Orwell’s list of rules to improve your writing?
I think that maybe the rules will improve the writing because we will have to think a lot more about what to write and not just throw out the first word that pops up in your head, but at the same time, I think that maybe the rules will make a lot of the texts that we are writing, looking more like each other and not as personal.
· Orwell wrote the following in the provided excerpt:
Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person.
What do you think he means when he suggests that one should focus on “pictures and sensations” before one sits down to put words on the page? Have you ever done this? Does it help you write better?
I think that he might meen that we should try to think first what we realloy want to describe and what we think is the important part of the picture and then try to write down the importtant part of the picture and what we really want other people to see. "A picture says more than thousands of words."
I think that every time we a doing a picture and try to describe it we are doing it, but I have never done it and thought about that I'm doing it, but I think it can be a good idea.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
The rich people is getting richer, but are the poor people really getting poorer? I'm not sure. Doesn't the poorer get richer as well? I think we are dealing with the thing growth here. But at the same time, I think that the segregation is growing as well. I think is a differece between different parts of the world. Some facts are pointing in that direction that the rich and wealty countries are rising their earnings while the poorer countries see no difference.
Of ocurse we can see differences between different countries and also between different people within a country. In some countries the gaps are a lot bigger between the richest people and the poorest.
Some people mean that rich people have it easier to make money, because they have a ground to stand on. If you allready have money, I think it's easier to make even more. Rich people often have contacts that can help them to go further with what they want to achieve.
People without contacts will often have a harder time to get a job, because then they don't have anybody that can help them and put them in a good position of getting the job.
I know that without contacts you will definitly have a harder time to get a job, even if you know that you are more qualified for the job. And since rich people often have the better jobs, that means that they have better contacts, and that leads to that they will have it a lot easier to make even more money, while the poorer people wont get the good jobs and therefore they will not make any more money. That might be one reason while the poorer gets poorer while the rich keep getting richer. Or at least, that the gaps bwtween people are growing.
But we still don't know if that is true. People have very different believes in this question. Some people believe that both parts are getting richer, some people believe that the rich are getting richer while the poor just are at the same level, and some people believe that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
Maybe, you should start to look around you. Are you rich or poor? Are you getting richer or poorer? What kind of lives are your friends living? Those questions might make it easier to answer how people are changing and how the standards of living are changing depending on if you're rich or poor and where you live.
The rich people is getting richer, but are the poor people really getting poorer? I'm not sure. Doesn't the poorer get richer as well? I think we are dealing with the thing growth here. But at the same time, I think that the segregation is growing as well. I think is a differece between different parts of the world. Some facts are pointing in that direction that the rich and wealty countries are rising their earnings while the poorer countries see no difference.
Of ocurse we can see differences between different countries and also between different people within a country. In some countries the gaps are a lot bigger between the richest people and the poorest.
Some people mean that rich people have it easier to make money, because they have a ground to stand on. If you allready have money, I think it's easier to make even more. Rich people often have contacts that can help them to go further with what they want to achieve.
People without contacts will often have a harder time to get a job, because then they don't have anybody that can help them and put them in a good position of getting the job.
I know that without contacts you will definitly have a harder time to get a job, even if you know that you are more qualified for the job. And since rich people often have the better jobs, that means that they have better contacts, and that leads to that they will have it a lot easier to make even more money, while the poorer people wont get the good jobs and therefore they will not make any more money. That might be one reason while the poorer gets poorer while the rich keep getting richer. Or at least, that the gaps bwtween people are growing.
But we still don't know if that is true. People have very different believes in this question. Some people believe that both parts are getting richer, some people believe that the rich are getting richer while the poor just are at the same level, and some people believe that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
Maybe, you should start to look around you. Are you rich or poor? Are you getting richer or poorer? What kind of lives are your friends living? Those questions might make it easier to answer how people are changing and how the standards of living are changing depending on if you're rich or poor and where you live.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Project #2 Draft
The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
The rich people is getting richer, but is the poor people really getting poorer? I'm not sure. Doesn't the poorer getting richer as well? I think we are dealing with the thing growth here. But at the same time, I think that the segregation is growing as well.
I think is a differece between different parts of the world. Some facts are pointing in that direction that the rich and wealty countries are rising their earnings while the poorer countries see no difference.
The rich people is getting richer, but is the poor people really getting poorer? I'm not sure. Doesn't the poorer getting richer as well? I think we are dealing with the thing growth here. But at the same time, I think that the segregation is growing as well.
I think is a differece between different parts of the world. Some facts are pointing in that direction that the rich and wealty countries are rising their earnings while the poorer countries see no difference.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Inte the news 100208
I think that he did it on purpose. Why would he ever say that he did anything like it, if he didn't do it. That's just so stupid. I also think that it was a racist act.
And why is so few cases regarding police authority known? I think that's because the police have a lot of power and really tries to keep their mistakes to themselves. Their reputation is so important and if it came out that a police did something bad that could make a lot of people loose their believes in the whole police auhority.
It's always easier to say that a single private person did something bad because that wouldn't cost a whole authority their reputation. Even if it was just one person who did something bad within the authority that could be devestating.
And why is so few cases regarding police authority known? I think that's because the police have a lot of power and really tries to keep their mistakes to themselves. Their reputation is so important and if it came out that a police did something bad that could make a lot of people loose their believes in the whole police auhority.
It's always easier to say that a single private person did something bad because that wouldn't cost a whole authority their reputation. Even if it was just one person who did something bad within the authority that could be devestating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
